Hosea 11:7-12:12 (S’fardim)

This haftarah is dominated by the recurrent denunciation of the religious and moral behavior of Ephraim (a designation for the northern tribes). Ephraim is judged for continuous defection from God. Counterpointing this human trait, God’s love for His people is proclaimed (Hosea 11:8-9): He cannot and will not destroy them like the ancient cities of the Plain (Admah and Zeboiim, ruined along with Sodom and Gomorrah in ancient times, although not mentioned in Genesis 19:23; Deuteronomy 29:22).

The vaunted mark of divinity is the ability to transcend wrath, to love with an unrequited and unconditional grace. Yet in a later passage (Hosea 12:7), reconciliation with God depends not on God’s unilateral grace but on the people’s transformation of their moral and spiritual lives.

The haftarah begins in the middle of chapter 11, with a proclamation of Ephraim’s defection from God (Hosea 11:7). It is part of the prophet’s overall rebuke of Israelite behavior during the reign of King Jeroboam II (784-748 ʙ.ᴄ.ᴇ.).

The prophet’s words begin and end with condemnations of Ephraim’s ongoing sins. The guile of father Jacob in the past provides a pivotal perspective. The nation is reminded of their ancestor’s deeds and of how he was requited for his acts.

This historical reference serves to warn the descendants of Jacob/Israel that they will also suffer punishment if they do not change their ways and return to a life of goodness and trust in God.

God’s attitude is not in doubt. Despite the people’s sinful behavior, divine punishment is aborted: “I will not act on My wrath,” says the Lord, “Will not turn (lo ashuv) to destroy Ephraim” (Hosea 11:9). Indeed, God’s love will prevail; He will “roar like a lion” and will “settle” (v’hoshavtim) His people “in their homes” (Hosea 11:11).

This promise precedes God’s second rebuke of Ephraim and His call that they “return (tashuv) to your God” (Hosea 12:7). It also precedes the ensuing (third) denunciation of Ephraimite overreaching (Hosea 12:8), and God’s declaration in judgment that He will “let you dwell (oshiyv’kha) in your tents again as in days of old” (Hosea 12:10).

The linguistic play on the verb shuv (return, repent) and the variations on the verb yashav (dwell, settle) point to the positive and the negative consequences of Israel’s behavior.

As for the return itself, the prophet is direct and precise: “Practice goodness (ḥesed) and justice (mishpat), / And constantly trust (kavveh) in your God” (Hosea 12:7).

The first part articulates the social-moral dimension of the covenant, enacting on the human plane precisely those values articulated by God Himself in His promised betrothal of the people: “And I will espouse you with righteousness and justice (mishpat), / And with goodness (ḥesed) and mercy” (Hosea 12:21). Israel’s covenantal actions thus mirror God’s constancy, but inevitably they are expressed through human fulfillment of His just and good laws.

The second part of Hosea’s demand transcends the human realm and has an exclusively transcendent focus. Trust in God is an entirely theological attitude, a commitment to a source of power and truth beyond human calculation. But it does not cancel the activist demands of justice, even as goodness in the social realm does not invalidate a theological orientation toward reality.

Relation of the Haftarah to the Parashah

The haftarah illustrates various episodes in the Book of Genesis, beginning with Jacob’s birth and continuing through his return to the land and the shrine of Bethel. Hosea emphasizes the theme of strife: Jacob’s struggle with his brother Esau and his night combat with the angel at the Jabbok ford.

These actions follow a denunciation of the Israelites as a people surrounding God with “guile” (mirmah, Hosea 12:1). This term recalls Isaac’s use of it to describe Jacob’s act of deceit, when he stole Esau’s blessing (Genesis 27:35).

Jacob also alludes to it when he reproves Laban for deceiving him with Leah, but the patriarch was reproved in turn (Genesis 29:25-26). Given this strategic recurrence, one may conclude that the term “mirmah” (and its derivatives) is used to suggest the continuity of Jacob’s deceitful character.

A relationship is thereby established between the acts of the patriarch and of his descendants. The intergenerational continuity of guile thus underscores an ancient flaw in father Jacob and its disastrous ramifications for later generations. Such a family trait must be confronted, to be halted or removed.

Toward this end, the prophet calls on the people to repent and perform good deeds. The haftarah, however, leaves little hope that self-examination will result. The reader thus confronts the destructive possibilities of unexamined character traits and their insidious effect on later generations.